Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Commander McBragg
Posted in:
* For almost two years now, Rod Blagojevich has said he is completely innocent of all charges, that he never did anything wrong, that he was “stolen” from the people by a too-aggressive prosecutor, that the surveillance tapes would prove everything.
And now that he has a chance to defend himself, what’s his excuse? “I got bad advice and I didn’t intend to do anything wrong”…
The trial of embattled former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich shifts to the defense team this week. Federal prosecutors wrapped their case Tuesday after six weeks of putting on evidence in the racketeering and extortion case against Mr. Blagojevich, attempting to portray him as a crass negotiator who inappropriately secured millions for his own campaign and spent lavishly on his wardrobe.
The defense strategy will not downplay Blagojevich’s actions, but focus on his intent.
His legal team, headed by Sam Adams Sr. and Sam Adams Jr., a well-known father-and-son duo in the city’s county court system, hope to convince jurors that the former governor knew what he was doing but was misguided, due to the poor legal advice from his inner circle.
So, a guy who gets elected to governor twice on the issue of George Ryan’s corruption, who is a lawyer and a former prosecutor is now saying he just did stupid things because of bad legal advice? I’m with Zorn. This situation does remind me of a certain Seinfeld episode…
Mr. Lippman: It’s come to my attention that you and the cleaning woman have engaged in sexual intercourse on the desk in your office. Is that correct?
George Costanza: Who said that?
Mr. Lippman: She did.
George Costanza: [pause] Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon… you know, cause I’ve worked in a lot of offices, and I tell you, people do that all the time.”
From Zorn’s excellent post…
Contrary to popular wisdom, “sometimes ignorance of the law is an excuse,” said Northwestern University law professor Albert Alschuler. He mentioned tax- and mail-fraud cases in which the “good faith” defense has prevailed. But to invoke “an ‘advice of counsel’ defense” that blames bum attorneys for one’s misdeeds, Alschuler said, a defendant has to show, among other things, “a request for advice of counsel regarding the legality of the proposed action.”
Alschuler added that “if any lawyer ever did” explicitly give the thumbs-up to some of the Blagojeviches’ alleged schemes and shakedowns, “it wouldn’t have been reasonable to rely on his advice.”
Especially since his predecessor was and is in prison for using the power of the governor’s office for personal gain.
This defense strategy relies far more on skillful argument to the jury at the end of the case than it does on the introduction of more evidence and testimony. Each new witness, particularly those with the last name Blagojevich, will come to the stand dragging a keg — not just a can — of worms ready to be opened.
* And Mark Brown puts it in perspective…
But when he takes the witness stand, a promise that Adam renewed Tuesday, the former governor will contend he thought he was acting within the law when he did those things.
In other words, he thought it was OK to direct others to try to wring campaign donations from the CEO of Children’s Memorial Hospital at the same time he was in discussions with that same CEO on a government policy change worth up to $10 million annually to the hospital, so long as he didn’t explicitly connect the two subjects in direct contacts with the hospital.
The same would go for his attempts to extract campaign donations from road-building and racetrack industry executives while holding hostage matters of importance to them — and maybe even for his ill-fated effort to get some personal benefit from filling Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat.
* Roundup…
* John Wyma takes the stand
* Blagojevich prosecution wraps
* Blagojevich’s defense: I didn’t mean to break the law
* Yes, there’s a bright side to Blago trial
* No trial today — lawyers to meet at 2 p.m.
* Blagojevich lawyers seek a week delay in trial
* Look who’s waiting now: The Blagojeviches pass on their first chance to testify
* Why Blago’s lawyers wanted more time
* Prosecution rests in Blagojevich corruption trial
* The Prosecution Rests Its Case in the Blagojevich Trial
* Lawyers Ready for Next Phase of Blagojevich Trial
* Rod Blagojevich defense: advisers gave him bum advice
* The prosecution rests
* Prosecution Rests in Blagojevich Trial
* Government rests its case; defense to begin on Monday
* Laying Down The Law
* Rod Blagojevich Trial: One Day 23, the prosecution rests. Emanuel call on Jarrett
* Halftime in the Blago Case: How Did the Prosecution Fare?
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 10:48 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Morning Shorts
Next Post: Commander McBragg
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The Great Cashmere Sweater episode, one of the best early Seinfelds along with Chinese Restaurant.
I use the “was that wrong?” dialogue to mimic my kids when they profess ignorance of their wicked, wicked ways.
Somehow, I don’t think it’s going to work here. The extortion testimony of the last few days has been devastating to Blago. No jury is going to go easy on a foul-mouthed, cowardly bully with a $400,000 wardrobe that shakes down baby cancer doctors.
If I were Blago, I’d throw the Hail Mary and call Levine and Rezko, the two characters in this farce who might seem sleazier than Blago to the jury. I don’t think he has anything to lose.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 11:12 am
I can’t WAIT to see if this jerk actually takes the stand. I think that he is just dumb enough to hang himself. But he thinks that he’s 5X more clever than he is.
The prosecution will savage him. After all, this is the same guy that hid in the crapper to avoid talking policy. I can’t see him standing up to a direct cross. It would be brutal.
Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 11:14 am
Agreed Wordslinger. If the defense can show that it was really Rezko and Levine (and Chris Kelly) who were the actual criminals here, Rod might have a chance. But calling Tony and Stu is a very dangerous game because they have the potential to put the final nail in Rod’s coffin.
My guess is they’ll make every effort to get others on the stand who will say Rezko and Kelly (not the Governor) were the ones giving orders to do improper things. They’ll try to establish reasonable doubt that Rod was a dupe in a scheme by others to take advantage of his position.
We’ll see. I still don’t think Rod takes the stand, so if there is exculpatory evidence on any of the tapes, the defense will have to work extra hard to get that into evidence without Rod’s corroboration.
I’ll wager the defense won’t last two weeks. I think there’s a strong chance that Adam’s first move Monday is to ask for a directed verdict, claiming the prosecution hasn’t met the burden of proof. After that gets denied, I think they are out of tricks.
Comment by 47th Ward Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 11:21 am
So the memo from the Gov that the senior staff missed read. . . “When I do something illegal I want to be the first to know.”
Comment by Way Way Down Here Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 11:24 am
Several points here:
First, Blago’s legal “education” and previous work as a prosecutor, state rep and Congressman will give the feds all the red meat to tear down the Adam’s defense. An attorney by trade should have certainly known his actions were illegal and would be scrutinized by the feds without having to ask a legal advisor his or her “opinion”.
Second, Blago wasn’t just getting poor advice on ethics. It’s pretty safe to assume Mr. Quinlan and a great deal of Blago’s other legal advisors routinely supplied Blago with misinformation on constitutional, budget and operations matters. The pattern runs deeper than dealmaking.
Third, the Adams Family apparently thinks the jury will be duped by such a defense. They will try to play on jurors thinking they too may have received bad advice and been caught or punished for such actions. Unfortunately, none of the jurors are two-term former governors.
Fourth, why did Blago have so many legal advisors on staff? Were there extra legal minds to ensure at least one of his attorneys agreed with him?
Fifth, I suppose I should start watching “Seinfeld” reruns again. I forgot about that episode.
Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 11:28 am
With what we have heard on tape and therefore now know of Blago’s character (vindictive, somewhat lazy and apparently often willing to “bend” in the direction of the highest bidder) it makes my skin crawl to know he was once a prosecutor. I would love to hear more from people who worked with him then or defended against his cases in that timeframe.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 11:44 am
So basically his defense is going to be, “well, I threatened to fire them unless they told me what I wanted to hear, and when they did, it was bad advice.”
Because Blago is on tape threatening to fire Greenlee when Greenlee tells him that he shouldn’t do something.
His own words will undermine his defense. By design, he surrounded himself with cowardly “advisors” who reinforced, rather than challenged, his corrupt, megalomanical schemes. He can’t blame them if he picked them and told them how to behave.
Comment by Zora Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 11:48 am
I would pay to watch Rod
or Potty Mouth Patty take the stand
Comment by Pay to Watch Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 11:49 am
I believe Ryan went to prison for misdeeds as SOS, not for things he did as Guv. as Zorn’s excellent post points out.
Comment by Billy Shears Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 11:53 am
You have to appreciate a defense that basically says, “I was too stupid to know better, so it isn’t my fault”. I find it hard to believe that if Rod does take the stand he is going to be able to say out loud that he is a dumb former prosecutor who didn’t know the law. He is way to narcissistic for that.
Comment by Really?? Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 11:55 am
At this point, his only defense is “The dog ate my conscience.”
Comment by And I Approved This Message Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 12:02 pm
RB not only has his background as an attorney and prosecutor haning on his neck, he crafted the states’ “Ethics Test” and, by his own words, has taken it (and, presumably, passed) every year since. What he has been doing, of course, is in direct conflict with the test which, by the way, is not hard to pass. It is really in plain language.
I wonder what color tie goes with orange?
Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 12:03 pm
The reason why this is not a horrible strategy IMO is that his lawyer is on some of the recordings we heard participating, at least tangentially, in some of these alleged plots. And these are the recordings the government has chosen to play. I assume there are other tapes where, once Blago waives his privilege, when played will make the lawyer look even less competent and/or ethical. It obviously won’t convince me or the public that he is innocent but who knows with a jury? Its not like he has many options anyway. His own words have absolutely killed him in this trial.
Comment by Cosmic Charlie Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 12:08 pm
So let me get this straight:
RRB’s defense expects me to beleive that he was following legal advice, had only motives pure as the driven snow, and was a total dupe in all of this:
How come he sets up a meeting with 2 fundraisers who are willing to put in $1.5 mil if he appoints JJJ as senator. Then his press secretary calls him and lets him know that his calls are being listened to. Despite this RRB is caught on tape cancelling the meeting with the fundraisers.
Now this appears to me that Gov Goofball, not only knows that he has done wrong, he then attempts to cover his tracks as he has got to know the second his press secretary calls to let him know he’s been bugged that the proverbial fit is about to hit the shan.
To me that’s enough of a smoking gun to put him in club fed for some time.
train111
Comment by train111 Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 12:20 pm
the prosecution on cross could just administer the ethics questions to Blago that all state employees are required to take (and timed!!!) to see if Blago answers them as to his actions. s ome of the legal issues may be more complicated, but this might be one thing the jury would immediately get.
Also is the Loop lady George Constanza in disguise?
Comment by flabergasted Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 12:25 pm
Yes, that is all Rod has. That is all Rod ever had. Yet he still found plenty of wealthy supporters to cough up money to fulfill his White House dreams, via the Governor’s Office.
Blagojevich was an obvious boob to anyone who knew him privately. So it took a chorus of mutes to elect him twice.
Who is going to be our next national disgrace? Which of our current candidate is going to be exposed as a fraud and a sham in the years ahead?
Yeah - that is all Rod ever had. Except the highest elected office in Illinois, thanks to the all-knowing wise ones within the Illinois Democratic Party. Great job guys! You sure know how to select from your ranks, the best your party has, don’t you?
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 12:27 pm
I still think Greenlee and his ilk have to bear some reponsibility here. Blago didn’t pay him. We did. His salary was paid by Illinois citizens and
we deserved his best judgment. Given his educational creds, he can’t get off by claiminng stupid. He went to some of the most competitive schools in the country–in the world, really.
With all employees undergoing ethics trainng during the Blago years, did Greenlee, a best and brightest, see himself as in a parallel universe where ethics laws don’t apply. How many other upper level state employees are living in the same ethics netherworld. Seems unlikely he is unique.
Comment by cassandra Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 12:38 pm
You gotta have the video:
Comment by Gordy Hulten Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 1:03 pm
Can’t embed, so here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RvNS7JfcMM
Comment by Gordy Hulten Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 1:04 pm
So, let’s get this straight.
When Blago lawyered-up with Winston & Strawn LLP with Illinois taxpayer’s money.
1. Ignored their advice
2. Wasn’t listening
3. He was preoccupied with kitty in the room.
4. All the above
Comment by Carlos Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 1:15 pm
Blago went to law school. He practiced law. He was a lawyer. He knew if something was right or wrong. They are making it sound like he had no law background. The prosecution needs to keep reminding the jury of that.
Comment by Onfire Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 1:34 pm
TS, but what about blago nudge nudge wink wink defense? he was carefuly to imply the connection very very strongly, without actually saying it out loud… how was he to know that som nudgeing and winkin about the connection was illegal if he held to the rule of not speaking it directly? poor innocent guy.
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 2:23 pm
off topic but some of my favorite Seinfeld episodes were the ones where they dinged George Steinbrenner while George worked for the Yankees…I read that he thought his characterization was funny…
and no flabbergasted, I’m not…I have a job and do not live with my parents…
Comment by Loop Lady Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 3:03 pm
All state employees are required to take the annual ethics test. That includes the governor. If he had taken it, he would know that the APPEARANCE of impropriety is enough to get you fired. You don’t actually have to do anything wrong, you just can’t put yourself in a situation that LOOKS like you are doing something wrong. Since Blago is the one who thought up the stupid test to begin with, I don’t know how he could deny knowing that he was violating the ethics rules/laws when he demanded money for his campaign from the same people who were seeking contracts from the state. Its a clear violation.
Comment by lincolnlover Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 4:03 pm
Blago is a trained attorney who took advice from other trained attorneys and who now claims he simply did not know what they said he could do was illegal. He must have missed/slept through those basic courses which covered ethics, finance, and general legal theory. Kinda like watching Top Chef and having a chef contestant go “I do not know how to make a pastry” or way under cooking meat. If you’re claiming to be a chef or an attorney, basic professional skills come with the territory.
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 4:20 pm
lincolnlover,
Certainly you must be aware that those tests are for the “little people” right?
;-{)>
Comment by Cincinnatus Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 4:25 pm
What makes you think Blago ever practiced law? Or showed up and worked all the time when he was a prosecutor? Did anyone ever check?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 4:48 pm
I can just feel the defense seriously considering that the best course of action at this time is (1) asking for a directed verdict; (2) in anticipation of that being denied, resting; (3) planning on hitting it hard and heavy and long in closing arguments.
Comment by Cheswick Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 5:13 pm
I’m certainly not an apologist for Bob Greenlee, but I always got the sense he was trying to do a good job despite who his superiors were…whether it was Filan or Blagojevich. It was clear to anyone in an executive position under the former Governor that you had to tolerate or appease the boss or else you were going to be out and replaced by someone who would would placate him. It’s easy in hindsight to label Greenlee and others as cowards, but in a perverse sense, I thought some of the Blago folks demonstrated some mettle by trying to do their jobs despite having an conniving and dis-engaged boss.
Comment by Budget Watcher Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 5:54 pm
Maybe Blago will call some of his former Spokeswomen (Rausch, Jackson, Ottenhoff) as witnesses to say that they gave incorrect information to the public everytime they stepped in front to the cameras and microphones saying that “this administration does things the right (legal) way”. Therefore, I did not lie! We’ve all heard the old saying that some people believe that “not getting caught telling a lie is the same thing as telling the truth”.
Comment by Macoupin Observer Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 9:46 pm
So I’ve read a couple of times in these comments how Blago’s well-educated, well-meaning senior staff had to “appease” him, otherwise they’d be replaced by some corrupt person who would “placate” him.
Appeasing, placating — aren’t we splitting hairs here?
It would help if these folks could explain what evil these waiting-in-the-wings placaters would have wrought and what evils the appeasers prevented. If appeasing worked so well, why is Blago on trial?
Comment by Way South of the Border Wednesday, Jul 14, 10 @ 10:02 pm